Ranked-choice voting, claiming to end polarization, is, in reality, an extension of majoritarian elections rather than a celebration of diversity in our electorate. Instead of highlighting governing principles, encouraging a governing vision based on these and thus providing us with distinct choices, it offers the option of the bland leading the bland. That’s what holding back on the sharp distinctions that define governing options does.

Ranked-choice, instead of highlighting deep differences in principle, puts a premium on minimizing these in order to win. It’s more like a pressure-cooker release valve that actually perpetuates the power of what’s already in the pot rather than seriously adding more distinct ingredients

“Ideological paralysis,” to the extent that it exists (“Letter to the editor: Ranked-choice voting will help reduce ideological paralysis in government,” May 29), reveals a system and culture that have lost the moral restraint once provided by WASP influence. As faith-based restraints have faded and cultural diversity increased, our system finds itself unable to house honest debate and compromise. Because traditional left-right pendulum swings increasingly lack sufficient meaning for many majority electoral systems, however construed, can only continue failing to represent diverse populations.

“Big-tent” parties have tried to accommodate diversity with mixed success, mostly because they end up losing their distinctive appeal while becoming more vulnerable to the multiple narrow interests they house. The result is parties without well-defined governing principles and a mindless pragmatism that values winning over all else. In such a climate, neither principle nor common good governance can be sustained.

Rather than dumbing down differences, what is needed are reforms that bring holistic, principled parties out into the open, see them represented in proportion to their vote totals and – because none will likely have majorities – see them forced to work together on compromises that promote justice to the broader social fabric. Serious electoral reform, not lip service to it, is what’s needed.

Alan Toth

Rockland

Copy the Story Link